Governor loses again

Published: Thursday, February 28, 2013 at 08:00 AM.

It’s too bad Gov. Rick Scott hasn’t showed as much “flexibility” on drug-testing welfare recipients as he has on expanding Medicaid.

Scott on Tuesday vowed to take his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal appeals court upheld a temporary injunction against Florida’s policy of making a drug test mandatory before receiving public assistance.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta sided with a federal judge in Florida who blocked the 2011 law on the grounds that the drug tests constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The 11th Circuit didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the law, but rather that the plaintiffs were likely to win based on the merits of their suit against the state.

Perhaps most tellingly, the panel agreed that Florida’s lawyers failed to show a need for the law. That’s always been one of the weakest parts of the state’s case.

Data from the Department of Children and Families revealed that the testing program, which was in effect for four months in mid-2011 before the injunction halted it, resulted in no monetary savings to taxpayers, nor did it have an effect on the number of people who applied for assistance.

Furthermore, because the law required the state to reimburse individuals who passed the tests, which average around $30, the tests would up costing the state more than $45,000.

Yet, because Scott campaigned on the issue in 2010, he is determined to ignore evidence and legal precedent and continue pressing his argument through the courts.

It’s too bad Gov. Rick Scott hasn’t showed as much “flexibility” on drug-testing welfare recipients as he has on expanding Medicaid.

Scott on Tuesday vowed to take his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal appeals court upheld a temporary injunction against Florida’s policy of making a drug test mandatory before receiving public assistance.

A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta sided with a federal judge in Florida who blocked the 2011 law on the grounds that the drug tests constituted an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. The 11th Circuit didn’t rule on the constitutionality of the law, but rather that the plaintiffs were likely to win based on the merits of their suit against the state.

Perhaps most tellingly, the panel agreed that Florida’s lawyers failed to show a need for the law. That’s always been one of the weakest parts of the state’s case.

Data from the Department of Children and Families revealed that the testing program, which was in effect for four months in mid-2011 before the injunction halted it, resulted in no monetary savings to taxpayers, nor did it have an effect on the number of people who applied for assistance.

Furthermore, because the law required the state to reimburse individuals who passed the tests, which average around $30, the tests would up costing the state more than $45,000.

Yet, because Scott campaigned on the issue in 2010, he is determined to ignore evidence and legal precedent and continue pressing his argument through the courts.

There’s no question his position is politically popular. What should matter most, though, is whether the policy is lawful.

There’s a meme circulating on Facebook that asks: “How is this unconstitutional? It’s OK to drug test people who work for their money, but not for those who don’t?”

The difference lies in the government doing the testing as opposed to the private sector. The Constitution restricts the power of government to infringe our rights, but private individuals and parties have more latitude. That’s why you can be fired from your job for saying bad things about your employer, but you can’t be punished for criticizing your elected officials.

The Supreme Court has allowed government testing only in “exceptional circumstances” where government can demonstrate “substantial special needs” (for instance, testing train engineers because on-the-job intoxication was a significant safety problem).

Previously, a federal court struck down a Michigan law that would have allowed for random, suspicionless testing of those seeking public assistance. The Supreme Court negated a Georgia law that would have tested all candidates for political office because the state failed to demonstrate there was a problem that needed to be addressed; the effort was purely symbolic.

If Florida believes all welfare recipients must be tested, why does it not test others who receive public benefits, such as Bright Futures scholars? Or business owners whose companies get economic development funds?

Nothing in this legal journey has indicated that Florida has a chance of winning this case. Scott should bow to reality and decline to appeal it further.

Most Recent

NOTE: Clicking on hashtags in this stream may result in seeing adult material, such as photos or foul language, that appear elsewhere on Twitter. We do not endorse such material, but we do not have control over what items can be found in hashtag searches.